Re: [RFD] Notes are independent: proposal for new notes implementation
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2010, 04:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100210045150.GB28526@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <201002092105.25636.jnareb@gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 09:05:23PM +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> The proposed solution was to use custom merge strategy for notes. But > what if the answer was to change implementation, decoupling history of > notes from each other, and keeping history of each note separate.
If I am understanding you correctly, instead of keeping a commit history of trees of many notes (one per sha1), we will have a tree of commit histories, one history per sha1. What problem is this solving?
If I modify commit X and you modify commit Y, we avoid making a merge commit. But so what? The merge would be trivial, since we did not modify the same entries. The user never cares that there is a merge commit.
And if we both _did_ edit commit X, both cases result in a merge.
If we both modified X and Y, then you will presumably do the merge for X and Y iteratively before you can create a new notes tree. Or you could merge them separately. But why? Why would I want to pull some subset of your notes (and keep in mind this is a subset of the commits you have noted, not a semantically different notes namespace), and how would I even specify which notes were of interest and which were not?
So what is the concrete use case where this helps?
-Peff